Letter 6: The Theory Surrounding “A Leader of This Caliber”
Nine Letters to Our Comrades
Letter 6: The Theory Surrounding “A Leader of This Caliber”
by Mike Ely
It would be one thing if Avakian’s many ideas were presented as hypotheses for exploration. But the RCP has articulated specific verdicts concerning leadership and synthesis:
- That human history — and specifically the world’s transition to communism — is shaped by the emergence of special leaders who transform the times in which they live.
- That Avakian can now be recognized as a leader “of the caliber” of “a Lenin or a Mao” — i.e., that he is a “rare, unique, and irreplaceable leader” who makes world-historic leaps in both theory and practice possible.[90]
- That the new synthesis for communism already exists now in the “body of work, method and approach” of Bob Avakian — a synthesis that is seen as still developing, but that is already fundamentally “there for the taking.”
- That this “appreciation” of Avakian and his synthesis is now formally a “cardinal question” for communists in the U.S., and a decisive question facing the world movement. [91]
- That it is theoretically possible for other leaders to emerge as communist leaders of historically special “caliber” (after all Marx had his Engels) — but that this is only possible on the basis of a real appreciation of Avakian’s synthesis. The basic method of communists, in the U.S. explicitly, must be to “race to catch up” with Avakian and “steep themselves” in his synthesis — not to vet each of his many still-unfolding theories critically and test them against reality.
- That once the emergence of this rare leader is grasped correctly there follows a whole sequence of strategic implications for the work of communists and the functioning of vanguard organization.
- And that communism (and by extension the future of humanity) “hangs by a thread.” In not-fully-formulated ways, that “thread” is Avakian and whether he is correctly appreciated (in the larger sense of that word) among communists and the people of the world.
These theses are newly articulated and newly adopted. [92] They reveal that the extreme forms and claims of the Party’s current cult of personality is not just a passing phase — but are foundational to Avakian’s newly articulated synthesis and worldview. These theories are now literally defining the party’s methods at the most fundamental level. They need to be brought fully into view and subjected to sharp criticism.
there is no law of history or biology that creates a special notch or “caliber” within humanity called “a Lenin” or “a Mao.” |
Revolution requires farsighted leadership. But there is no law of history or biology that creates a special notch or “caliber” within humanity called “a Lenin” or “a Mao” — as if some of us arrive stamped as .50 caliber shells and the rest show up as .22s or blanks. There is far more continuity and variation in the spectrum of human potential than that.
Julius Caesar was a history-making military dictator of Rome — but in the hands of his successor Augustus, “Caesar” went from being a man’s name to being a title. It was a bid for borrowed legitimacy. Should we really agree to turn the names of our leaders like Lenin and Mao into categories of stature?
Should we accept proposals from living revolutionary leaders that their “packages” of ideas and method be accepted whole, as comprehensive new overhauls of Marxism — for Gonzalo [93] to style himself as the “fourth sword of Marxism,” or for Avakian to view himself and his work as a “cardinal question”? Are these really the only (or the most likely) choices?
Isn’t it quite possible to be influential or creative in human events and not represent a correct new communist synthesis (as shown by Ho Chi Minh or Che Guevara)? Isn’t it possible to be a prominent and creative revolutionary leader and yet not be bringing Marxism to a new level (as shown by Charu Mazumdar, İbrahim Kaypakkaya or Zhang Chunqiao) [94] ? Isn’t it possible to have a positive impact in one period, and fall seriously short in another (as might be said about Joseph Stalin)? Isn’t it possible to probe important questions without solving some of the key problems or reaching a new synthesis of Marxism? And isn’t it possible to make contributions in one realm of theory or practice, while falling far short in another?
Avakian is alive and engaged. We can expect new amendments and developments for his synthesis to be announced regularly, for years to come — and new initiatives into practice as well. Some things criticized here, in these letters, may yet be modified with new layers of caveat and nuance. And some of his insights may be proven correct by future practice.
But it is wrong to declare that a coherent new leap in Marxism is taking shape (or that the core of it is already “there for the taking.”) And it is especially wrong when there are major flaws and gaps running deep in the synthesis now being put forward.
In addition: Our verdict need not be “either/or” — is our only choice that Avakian is “a new Mao” or a new Kautsky [95] ? No. A later assessment might well reveal that Avakian is comparable to the 19th century’s Daniel DeLeon, who established an early Marxist pole in the U.S. but whose schematic ideas condemned his party to relative marginalization. Or that Avakian may one day appear to us as the abolitionist John Brown, whose passionate belief in the emancipation of slaves drove him toward revolution, but whose sectarian grandiosity left him with only a handful of followers (while millions of people around him were on the verge of waging a revolutionary war).
Throughout history, leaders (of many classes) left unique marks on their times. [96] There are moments in history when movements will fall apart and fail if key leaders are “neutralized” (which obviously means that they are functionally irreplaceable).
But leaders can claim to be “special” in ways they are not. And the importance of key leaders can be exaggerated in ways that promote a false theory of history that (among other things) denies the role of the masses.
For example, Avakian’s synthesis misstates how exceptional leaders are forged, and denigrates therole of revolutionary practice in the development of both theory and leadership.
Revolutionary communist leaders are fundamentally a product of the struggle of the broad masses of people, especially (but not solely) of movements they actually lead. It is not the “emergence” of “rare and special” people that “repolarizes” the political alignments of society in ways that make revolutionary change possible. The objective emergence of deep social fissures and the collective struggles of the people to make fundamental change have more to do with the “emergence” of great leaders than the other way around. [97]
One comrade wrote:
“Lenin and Mao became Lenin and Mao through the process of gaining and giving leadership in the world-historic Russian and Chinese revolutions. Not: that’s how they attained the stature in the eyes of the world that they would have (should have) had anyway by right, but rather, it’s only in this way that their theories were forged. Bob Avakian’s contributions are exploratory and unfinished. He is often not able to fully or correctly answer the important questions in revolutionary theory he raises. This is not a criticism, and in fact I don’t think these questions, which are crucial questions of revolutionary theory, are resolvable by one person reflecting and struggling with them, or one person with the resources of this party (certainly not as it stands).” [98]
The RCP argues correctly that you cannot judge the value of a leader by simply measuring the size of their forces. Marx was more correct than the leaders of the Paris Commune. Lenin was more correct than Kautsky (despite his legions of supporters in Germany). It is wrong to dismiss Avakian’s theories simply because he is not yet leading a significant revolutionary movement. But, it is possible to connect some of the real weaknesses and failures of this “party of Bob Avakian” to real weaknesses in his method and approach.
The adoption of a new synthesis requires critical scientific evaluation, including real testing and modification in practice. It can’t be done on faith or decree. It can’t be done sight-unseen. In other words, it can’t be done the way Avakian demands, as we will now discuss.
Previous Letter | Next letter..
Notes
[90] Sometimes a tactically softer “our Lenin” is used. The RCP does not use the formulation “Avakianism.” “A Lenin or a Mao” means a communist leader who is revamping all of communist theory in a world-historic leap. And the operative summation the RCP uses is that Avakian is “on the level of a Mao or a Lenin” with all the implications that holds for MLM around the world.
[91] A cardinal question is an issue that is a dividing line between revolutionary communism and counterrevolutionary revisionism. The RCP now holds that the appreciation of Bob Avakian and his synthesis is such a question – literally on the level of whether to uphold the dictatorship of the proletariat or the need for a vanguard party. Here is how it was popularly put in Revolution’s “Special Issue on Bob Avakian”:
“At a time when the ‘science of revolution’ demands a leap in its understanding in a number of crucial realms, he has stepped forward to fill that great need. The contributions that we have outlined here are essential to the further and future advance of the revolutionary cause and communist project; they are a treasure for humanity.” (emphasis in original).
[92] It is said, at times that these theories have been the party’s line since 1979. But that is not true. They are recent, and negate previous understandings about collectivity and mass line.
[93] Chairman Gonzalo (Abimael Guzman) is the leader of the Communist Party of Peru, also known as the Shining Path.
[94] Charu Mazumdar (1918–1972) was leader of the 1967 “Spring thunder” uprising of peasants starting in Naxalbari that gave rise to the Maoist movement in India. İbrahim Kaypakkaya (1949-1973) was the founder of the Maoist movement in Turkey and leader of an early attempt to launch protracted people’s war. Zhang Chunqiao (1917-2005) was a leader of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China, and first-rank figure in the Maoist circle called the “Gang of Four” by their enemies.
[95] Karl Kautsky was a top leader of German socialists and the Second International who was promoted as the successor to Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels, but proved himself to be a scholastic pedant who clutched at old formulation and an enemy of the first socialist revolution in Russia.
[96] If Lenin had died in 1914, a communist revolution would not have taken place in 1917 Russia. Had Attila or Napoleon died young, world history would have taken some different turns.
[97] The RCP now talks of “repolarizing society” specifically around Avakian, as a person and a leader, (and the work of promoting him) playing a role of decisive importance in repolarizing society from the current hostilities between secular liberalism and recently ascendant rightist conservatism. It expresses this thought publicly like this:
“Two futures confront each other. Will imperialism force a future of darkness and suffocation onto the people? Will tens of millions more needlessly suffer and die? OR, will the critical spirit be unleashed in a way that does a great GOOD for humanity? Will society move forward in a revolutionary direction and set about removing the great suffering and misery cast down on the people by capitalism? To put it another way, which vision will prevail: that of George W. Bush? Or of Bob Avakian?” from “The Battle For The Future,” op. cit.
[98] From an unpublished paper shared with Mike E.
Published: December 2007
Available online at mikeely.wordpress.com
Send comments to: kasamasite (at) yahoo (dot) com
Feel free to reprint, distribute or quote with attribution to Mike Ely and a link.
This website and all contents are licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.
redflags said
Any thoughts on why the RCP hasn’t formally adopted “Avakianism”?
I mean, that is what’s going on here – especially when the demand is made (however far-fetched) that Bob Avakian should be the field marshal of the world revolution… that he, personally(!), is the “cardinal question” among communists internationally?
If the RIM is no longer promoted, if the Nepalese revolution is ignored (including absolutely ZERO sustained work against U.S. intervention), if the significant parties such as in the Philippines, India and Turkey are all “kept from view” of U.S. revolutionaries… the effect is to detach the members and supporters of the RCP from the very international movement that should be the air we breath.
Mike is on point in criticizing the notion of “leaders of this caliber” – that we should oppose this whole line of thinking pretty much on general principle. It’s also worth noting, particularly for a U.S. audience, that Avakian’s vision of himself has FLOPPED internationally. The Nepalese have come out against both backseat driving and the idea of transcendent leaders. They said quite clearly that one of the defining problems of socialism has been the replication of leadership generationally.
That’s heartening. Let’s learn from that spirit. This is an debate among communists that is just now coming into the open. Some will try to stuff it back into the box, wrapped in a cult of personality that uses tautologies in place of praxis. But it’s not working, it hasn’t been working – and people who work to serve the people should not get caught up in nonsense that will literally waste all that effort and good intention.
YO said
The reason that it was explained to me (by a party supporter) that they don’t use the formulation “avakianism” is because, basically, it’s not a settled question. There is still much debate to be had around the New Synthesis, and to declare it “avakianism” would stifle some the discussion. The important thing is not to assert another “ism” and another head on the wall, but for people to “engage” what avakian is saying. Of course, everything I just said contradicts the theme running through 9 Letters of the RCP demanding that people accept the New Synthesis as dogma… and if not they are counter-revolutionaries. Here’s my question: Why does Ely not even mention the “engage” statement in his critique? Is it because the actual content of the statement itself contradicts the straw man that he has constructed for the RCP?
On a side note, the RCP does promote the RIM, almost every other issue of the newspaper when they print articles from A World To Win News service.
ulises138 said
That doesn’t negate the criticisms of the 9 Letters. A debate over what to call Avakian’s new synthesis, and how to formulate it, whether as a “thought” or an “ism”, is decidedly not a debate over whether that synthesis is correct or not. I believe that Ely’s position is that the the verdict as to whether Avakian’s leadership and synthesis is correct is what is not up for discussion within the RCP. The verdict that his contributions are on the level of a Lenin or Mao (thus calling forth this problem of whether to call it a “thought” or an “ism”) is likewise settled and not up for discussion. Moreover, it seems to me, that he is saying that the discussion and struggle over exactly this verdict was superficial.
Letter 7 deals with exactly how this verdict developed in the RCP, and characterizes it as an example of “whateverism”.
Printing an article from A World To Win news service does not address the question of internationalism. The question of internationalism posed in these Letters and elsewhere is a question of why the RCP has been silent about major revolutionary upsurges in South Asia.
Confusing the outward face of the Engage! project with the fully developed line of the RCP on the question of Avakian’s leadership would be incorrect. The Engage! statement, like all the other signing statements and calls of the RCP, is aimed at middle forces in the U.S. And particularly, in this case, at intellectuals. Just as the “World Can’t Wait Call” did not project the same political line as the “Battle for the Future statement”, in which we were told that the future would be defined by the “vision” of Bush or the “vision” of Avakian, the Engage! project does not plainly express the fullness of the RCP’s position on Avakian’s leadership. Though one could read into it where it talks of him being a “necessary part of the ferment and discourse required in this society and the world in this dark time.” I don’t believe that the RCP uses words like “necessary” lightly. I’m pretty sure they mean this literally. Just as sure as they mean the previous sentences about his “sweeping view” and his “fresh” take on Marxism literally (this is just a restatement of their verdict of the gravity and correctness of Avakian’s new synthesis).
They more or less plainly say that he is a leader of a “special caliber” when they discuss his “special role in organizing and leading that change”. Again, they mean this literally. Avakian has a special role to play in changing the world. Sounds a little weird when you strip away the carefully structured language that frames the whole thing. Why should he have a special role? On what basis? Is his synthesis really sweeping, fresh, and relevant? Does he and his party really boldly and clearly discuss the short comings of past communist states? Do they really engage opposing ideas and public intellectuals? The 9 Letters answers “no” to all of these claims, and it gives a pretty good accounting of why the answer to these questions is “no”.
Big L said
Yo says,
“Of course, everything I just said contradicts the theme running through 9 Letters of the RCP demanding that people accept the New Synthesis as dogma… and if not they are counter-revolutionaries.”
Yo, I have some experience dealing with RCP cadre and the experience I’ve had (subjective) corresponds pretty well with what Ely has written here. In fact, the cadre I’ve dealt with have explicitly pointed out that in order to get to communism one must “go through bob’s synthesis.” This may not explicitly mean that those who don’t are counter-revs, but it’s easy to see in what direction its leaning.
tellnolies said
YO,
You raise some important questions and I think folks here should really treat them seriously.
I think the question of why the party hasn’t used the formulation “Avakianism” is not really the key issue. Given the present trajectory I wouldn’t be suprised by such a formulation down the road, but the real issue is not the choice of terminology ao much as the contradiction between the rhetoric about openness to discussion and the actual practice of the RCP when real substantive criticisms are raised.
(On this point I would urge you to check out the post here: https://mikeely.wordpress.com/2007/12/31/initial-rcp-response-to-9-letters)
The point I think that Ely is making here is not simply that party supporters “accept the New Synthesis as dogma” but that the actual content of the New Sythesis itself is neither particularly clear, nor particularly new, and that this reflects a real failure of the party to actually engage.
Its fine to call for people to “engage Avakian.” The problem is that when they do and they actually respond critically or express the fact that what he is saying is not nearly as daring and exciting as he seems to think, the conversation comes to an end. “Engagement” should be a two way street.
The “debate” that the RCP seems interested in having around the New Synthesis is not a real debate, but a stage-managed process leading to a foregone conclusion that the leadership has already decided on.
The best evidence of this lack of interests in real debate is the public silence in response to the Nine Letters, which quite frankly, are BY FAR the most substantive actual “engagement” with Avakian’s “new synthesis” that I’ve seen anywhere.
Ely can probably explain for himself why he didin’t specifically address the Engage statement, but I don’t really see how including it would have damaged his argument.
This is not a “straw man” argument. It is a highly principled, serious and thoughtful critique by someone who dedicated their life for over three decades to building the RCP, who served as editor of the newspaper, and who represented the best of what the party had to offer. It can not be dismissed so casually.
As for the RCP’s promotion of the RIM, the real issue here is the silence of the RCP on rapidly developing situations in Nepal and India. Running articles from AWTW News Service is is a pretty feeble standard for international solidarity.
SS said
Tellnolies and others,
Once again I find myself compelled to raise the fact that I recently contacted supporters of the party who have been close to it for a number of years (one for around 30 and the other for a substansive number, although not as long as the first) as well as a few who have only been around for about 1. All of them welcomed the idea of discussing the 9 letters. I have serious doubts that that letter is representative of the party as a whole, and should not by any means be a reference point for people in regards to the party. As was stated over and over again in a different post on this website, an individuals opinion does not necessarily reflect the line of a party.
Now with that being said I do believe that the way the party structures its paper and promotes Avakian, can and probably does inadverdently promote a lack of critical thinking among the party supporters. This is a contradiction, and it is one that should be pointed out and criticised. However that is not an RCP line. My assumption is that it is expected among party supporters to pay more than lip service to the idea of real and rigorous thought. In my experience, although many of them do not engage in deep intellectual inquiry into deep questions of philosophy, they certainly do not shrink from principled questioning and criticism. Maybe my town happens to be unique in this respect, but somehow I doubt it. I appreciate the 9 letters very much and have been reading them with great interest (numerous times). However I do no agree with the way that that email is presented because my experiences contradict the way it is being portrayed as official party line, memo, or whatever you want to call it.
tellnolies said
SS,
Lets hope you are correct, because the e-mail is a terrible response to this important critique. I think the inference that it reflects the official view of the RCP leadership is a reasonable one, but it is an inference and I think everybody would be happy if it was mistaken.
It would be great if instead of attacking Mike or issuing a superficial instant verdict, the RCP said “we encourage all of our suuporters to read and discuss the Nine Letters at all levels within the party so that the response of the party to the issues it raises is the product of a real engagement.”
I think there are good reasons to think this won’t happen, but if the RCP is as interested in the robust wrangling over ideas as Avakian claims I’ll gladly admit my error.
rosarl said
Yo said:
“The reason that it was explained to me (by a party supporter) that they don’t use the formulation “avakianism” is because, basically, it’s not a settled question. There is still much debate to be had around the New Synthesis, and to declare it “avakianism” would stifle some the discussion. The important thing is not to assert another “ism” and another head on the wall, but for people to “engage” what avakian is saying. Of course, everything I just said contradicts the theme running through 9 Letters of the RCP demanding that people accept the New Synthesis as dogma… and if not they are counter-revolutionaries. Here’s my question: Why does Ely not even mention the “engage” statement in his critique? Is it because the actual content of the statement itself contradicts the straw man that he has constructed for the RCP?”
First, it is true that the question of “Avakianism” is not a settled question however it is considered that the question of Bob Avakian being ‘a Lenin” or “our Lenin” is a settled question. It is said that revolution is hanging by a thread and that thread is Bob Avakian. Further, the logical conclusion of ‘a Lenin’ is that there is “Avakianism” just as there is Leninism – even though this is not said. It is the logic of the logic. It is the overall direction of the party at this time.
Second, as for Engaging the Chair, others have answered this quite well. I would like to add – here it is – we ARE engaging him right now – in this discussion and IN the 9 letters. This is hardly in contradiction with the engage statement to be engaging him!
The RCP’s silence on this is both telling and deafening!
Rosa Harris
rosarl said
SS says:
“As was stated over and over again in a different post on this website, an individuals opinion does not necessarily reflect the line of a party.”
This is very true, however keep in mind that when multiple people in different areas have the same response it is very likely that the opinion is coming down FROM leadership. I am not surprised that there are individuals who react differently – who are trying to ‘make it work’. There are good Comrades in the party still who are in hope that this trend will change. I was one of them for a while before I realized that the change was not going to happen and that the lock down on ideas was crushing any potential for advancement in the theoretical understanding within the party.
Rosa Harris
Andrei Mazenov said
One thing that surprises me is how a lot of RCP supporters see the 9 Letters as one big “straw man”, in which Mike Ely is not engaging the Party’s line. However, I just wanted to point out (although this may be considered hearsay) that in my time with the RCYB I was instructed that anyone who doesn’t accept the Avakian’s “new synthesis” in its fullest form is a revisionist, and that the new synthesis is the newest and highest stage of international communism.
Is there a reason some people have such an inconsistent view of the RCP’s line? A lot of RCP/RCYB supporters are shocked or confused when they hear Ely’s criticisms or when I talk about my experiences, saying “that is not the line of the Party!”
Are there any thoughts as to why this has happened?
SS said
I don’t deny the possibility but my own experience points to something different. I find it to be quite hasty to propose that that email is official party line without intensive investigation. Just as there could be a few good comrades, there could be a few slaves as well. That mentality goes both ways.
Andrei Mazenov said
One thing that surprises me is how a lot of RCP supporters see the 9 Letters as one big “straw man”, in which Mike Ely is not engaging the Party’s line. However, I just wanted to point out (although this may be considered hearsay) that in my time with the RCYB I was instructed that anyone who doesn’t accept the Avakian’s “new synthesis” in its fullest form is a revisionist, and that the new synthesis is the newest and highest stage of international communism.
Is there a reason some people have such an inconsistent view of the RCP’s line? A lot of RCP/RCYB supporters are shocked or confused when they hear Ely’s criticisms or when I talk about my experiences, saying “that is not the line of the Party!”
ulises276/2 said
I think SS’s point should be taken seriously. Some of the discussion here comes from the assumption that the RCP is in fact the monolith that it projects itself to be. If we look at the line put forward by both the email and others that the email echos, it divides into two.
It says 1) Ely is unprincipled and 2) the 9 Letters should be taken as a chance to clarify the new synthesis and the line of the RCP. Some people, and this probably goes all the way up the hierarchy, concentrate on the first aspect and continue to traffic in rumor and accusation. Others do in fact concentrate on the second aspect, though I have yet to hear any substantive clarifications, or even pointing out specific distortions from the 9 Letters.
If we are to assume anything, we should assume that the RCP, like any organization has many internal contradictions, that even where the same line is apparently guiding the actions of various people, the actions themselves will vary on the basis of these individuals internally held lines or on the basis of their interpretation of the official line. This is reality, but on the other hand this view makes the entire concept of a democratic-centralist party problematic.
papertiger said
I would like to agree that people in different areas behave differently, and that internal contradiction due exist. I experienced the kind of mentality that Eli refers to, in different places. In my district, however, some of the things that Eli accuses the Party of, exist only partly (I never actually met people who are members only supporters, so maybe my knowledge lacks in comparison to Eli). A lot of people around me do engage in critical thinking and do work with old comrades (unlike, for example, Eli’s claim that old comrades are excommunicated).
I would like to only add this, as part of my discussion on the nine letters, a resolution came about, in which I agreed to reread Avakian works to determine if he really represents a “rare and unique leader” (something that I always disagreed with). In the ones I read already, I found no “uniqueness”, but a basic communist theory that a lot of people that I know could have written (and should). I was a bit bothered when reading “On the Occasion of the Death of Willie “Mobile” Shaw”, that Avakian, although writing a very powerful massage ( which I don’t think that only his “rare and unique leadership” could come up with) have put in the following statement,
“Willie said to me: “You are the only hope we have.” I have kept those words in my heart, with a deep sense of responsibility to live up to them.”
I found this statement extremely problematic not only because Shaw, as a Maoist, thought that Avakian “Is the only hope we have”, but because the chair has not opposed this comment (saying perhaps that actually the masses in their millions are our only hope), and actually validates this by writing that he “kept these words in his heart with a deep sense of responsibility.” Furthermore, the fact that the comment was published in Revolution, and became a little book that was sold at Revolution Books across the country, says a lot (I assume) about the mind-frame that exists at the higher levels of leadership at the party.
treacherousbright said
Unless I’ve read it wrong, I believe that the source of the excerpt from the “response” letter was made clear as being what some folks seem to be saying and hearing about the 9 letters but that it was NOT an official response.
SS said
Intro to the ”initial response”
”At the same time, some RCP supporters (in different parts of the country) have responded in ways suggesting a COMMON SCRIPT. We recently received the following text from an RCP supporter. These same themes and phrases have been heard from others. THIS IS, I BELIEVE, the RCP’S INITIAL RESPONSE to our “9 Letters.””
The message of ”this is, I believe, the RCP’s initial response to our ”9 letters”” is that it is an official response. Mike covers his tracks by inserting ”I believe” but the affect is still obviously the same on people reading this. People have run with that idea, which I think is quite premature, and lacking substansive evidence. So until I start hearing script responses myself, or read something a little more meaty than someones personal email, I will continue to argue against that point as being wrong, and (if it turns out Mike is indeed wrong) even unprincipled.
Why the would someone blog someones personal email, when an individual obviously cannot be seen as representing a group, if it wasn’t thought that that was official line?
Jimmy Higgins said
Jeepers, SS, this seems pretty disingenuous. There is, as of now, no official RCP(USA) response to Mike’s “9 Letters.” Do you really think this fact means that the leadership noted that the letters (and accompanying lively discussion) are here and moved on to more pressing business, leaving the cadre to evaluate their content for themselves? If so, I have a lower East River crossing you might be interested in purchasing.
The reality is that we will probably see the response shifting in the coming period, as the leadership tries to evaluate and come to grips with the internal reverberations and to figure out how to respond to a challenge like this in the online era, when it is far harder to insulate the cadre while line is settled and official documents are written. That may not come any time soon. (As you may or may not know, there is still no official public explanation from either side of the now two-year-old WWP/PSL split, for instance.)
Are you seriously arguing, SS, that there be no discussion of the RCP response to the largest challenge Avakian and those around him have faced since the 1978 RCP/RWHq split? I think that those interested enough to post on this site or even to follow the discussion here have kind of an obligation to report on what straws in the wind they may come across that indicate what the RCP’s response to this challenge is. And frankly, posting excerpts of emails with no personal or security-related content tends to be a lot more informative than anecdotal stuff about “the RCP supporters I have talked to say…” with neither exact quotes nor reference to how many (which SS did do), where and with what likelihood that they represent the emerging line of the RCP, or a current within it.
SS said
My argument is not that there be no discussion of responses to these letters from RCP supporters. My argument is that personal emails should not be portrayed as official line. As I posted before I do not doubt that the way the RCP structures its group can lend to a lack of critical thinking. This should be discussed in length in regards to how and why that is, and how that sort of behavior can be avoided in the future. However throwing around peronal emails should not be used to show emerging line. That’s the whole reason I posted my recent experience. Because there is more than one monolothic opinion emerging from the RCP and that needs to be put forward. I could post the email I got but it would not further this discussion in any way. And no, that email is not much more informative than personal adecdotal stuff, that’s the whole point.
SS said
The email is useful in the sense that you can slice it up and analyze it, but what it ends up amounting to is one (or a couple) of peoples (knee-jerk?) reactions to a crtiticism of the party. Until more time has passed and an overwhelming number of people express that opinion, it really amounts to no more than the personal feelings of a few people. Which can and should be discussed in their own right, but not as something mroe than the opinions of a few people.
We can discuss how the cult of Avakian mentality may damage peoples ability to think on a critical level all day, I’m all for that. But not treating a personal email as official party line until much more evidence is produced.
How about we discuss how already established lines of the party, can contribute to causing people to react with that sort of response?
Jimmy Higgins said
Okay, SS. I think your points are largely reasonable.
Unfortunately the cast of posters here on Kasama, while prolific, is not yet large enough or in many cases, like my own, closely connected enough with the RCP and its cadre to offer a substantially larger body of input on what the RCP reaction is. Thus the debate over whether the letter represents a) central direction (which I don’t think anyone is claiming is “official”), b) central direction since superseded by a ‘softer” line which still eschews coming to grip with the content of Mike’s contribution, c) individuals whose ability to respond has been crippled what you aptly term “the cult of Avakian mentality” or d) something else altogether, like a two-line struggle developing inside the RCP, cannot be too productive in the absence of further investigation.
So let us, in keeping with your suggestion, continue to wrangle with the effects of the cult of personality on the line, practice and thinking of the RCP and its supporters. And let us also keep our eyes and ears open for more straws in the wind that may show how the leadership is responding, as it most certainly is, to this epochal challenge to its line and functioning.
rosarl said
I think that it is very important to approach these question as an issue of line so to get back to the actual content of the email and the line that it is putting forward –
In the email that is being discussed here the following is said:
“Quitting the P and then turning around and then attacking the P- particularly in the form of denouncing the “cult of the personality” and accusing Cs’ of “religious dogma and cultism,” including when it is done from a “left” or even a “socialist” or “communist” posture- is a rather classical form of capitulating to imperialism and attacking C, while pretending (perhaps even to oneself) that one is not doing so.
let’s look at what little substance there is here and what it means or implies –
1) there is an admission of the importance that the party is now putting on the ‘cult of personality’.
2)What is actually classical here is the fight of revolutionaries AGAINST the formation of a cult of personality – as pointed out in the polemic but also Marx said that he was not a Marxist and Stalin also faght against some of this as well – I don’t recall the specific references.
3)If there is capitulation here – it is the capitulation to elitist and idealist thinking that goes along with the cult of personality – it is actually a capitulation to a ruling class ideology and it colors the whole party and leads to many of the changes we have seen as those in the party also will tend to view themselves as ‘special’ because they are ‘communist’ as well. What difference is this from the thinking that a few individuals can ‘make it’ and deserve to make it in this society and everyone else is the slaves because they are not as capable?
4)Now – think about the ad-hominid attacks – because the party and its leadership is special then the logic would be that there is something personally wrong with Mike and that his line – whatever it is – is not worth engaging because it is not – in their opinion – possibly correct. This is an expression of the line that they are carrying out – just like the attacks on Jiang Jing and the ‘gang of four’ after Mao’s death – in fact there are very strong elements of the same line being put into practice by the party.
It can be interesting how people’s actions reflect the line that they are putting into practice!
Stiofan said
I have been simultaneously going through the 4-DVD set of talks by Bob Avakian, REVOLUTION: Why It’s Necessary, Why It’s Possible, What It’s All About, while reading “Nine Letters” and the posts on this site. I agree with Chairman Avakian that a new synthesis of revolutionary ideology is absolutely essential for our times. The question now is this: does BA thought represent the insights gained from successful practice that will now serve as a guide to making significant breakthroughs in the future? Does Avakian’s work embody both the theoretical sophistication as well as the practical utility to justify making it the center of gravity of party work? Let me offer two incidents from the era of the Cultural Revolution and the example of Chairman Mao that might be helpful in engaging with the writing of Chairman Avakian.
General Yang Chengwu was the acting chief of staff of the People’s Liberation Army and a close ally of Lin Biao as well as a supporter of Jiang Qing. The following are quotes from Jin Qiu’s book, The Cultural of Power: The Lin Biao Incident in the Cultural Revolution, published in 1999.
Jiang also put Yang in charge of another of her projects, drafting “An Outline of the History of the Two-Line Struggle,” a new version of the party history. Yang organized a group of more than 30 writers from the armed services, including his daughter, but at Jiang’s insistence the finished party history mentioned only three names: Mao Zedong, Lin Biao, and Jiang Qing. When Jiang brought the finished history to Mao for approval, Mao angrily threw it to the ground and ordered her to burn all copies and send everyone in the writing group back to their original work units.
……….
Yang gradually fell out of favor with Mao and Lin by the end of 1967. The first indication of this concerned his article “Establishing the Great and Absolute Authority of Mao Zedong Thought.” The article was drafted by Yang’s subordinates at the Department of the General Staff. Before its publication, Yang sent a draft to Mao…, on December 17, 1967, Mao publicly criticized the article on the ground that the title was inappropriate. “All authority is relative,” Mao asserted. “Authority is established through the practice of revolutionary struggle, not through certain announcements.”
(The source cited for both of these incidents was a manuscript Wu Faxian, pp 20-22.)
In my own engagement with the work of Bob Avakian I wonder if the history of the RCP is being compressed now to include just one name and has this absolute authority of Avakian thought been established simply through an announcement.
Ulises said
I think you have nailed the main questions raised in the 9 Letters, “does BA thought represent the insights gained from successful practice that will now serve as a guide to making significant breakthroughs in the future? Does Avakian’s work embody both the theoretical sophistication as well as the practical utility to justify making it the center of gravity of party work?”
Stiofan writes:
“In my own engagement with the work of Bob Avakian I wonder if the history of the RCP is being compressed now to include just one name and has this absolute authority of Avakian thought been established simply through an announcement.”
It is my belief that the authority of Avakian’s leadership and synthesis is founded on a simple assertion. In other words, it is unfounded. The difficulty, or maybe the simplicity of the issue, arises in the very inability of any RCP supporter to provide good reasoning as to how and why Avakian’s synthesis and leadership rise to the level that they are asserting. Those that make such assertions hold the burden of proof for justifying such claims. In the absence of such a justification it can be assumed that the claims are not true.
I have watched the DVD multiple times, all the way through. And read every new excerpt and speech by Bob Avakian since he first proclaimed his “epistemological break”, and a lot more besides. I have waited for years now for the substance behind the claims to be delivered. When the news started going around that “something big was coming out” in the first months of 2007, I was expecting exactly this: a substantive encapsulation of the new synthesis with the groundbreaking points in it either newly developed or clearly pointed out. We got neither. What we got was the “Special Issue” on Bob Avakian, which asserted that what he had said to date was actually the grounds for upholding his leadership in the way that the RCP is now doing.
Mumia’s Conviction Upheld in Federal Court — Actions Planned « Kasama said
[…] 6 […]
Bill Martin On Conception & Collectivity: Pt. 5 New Forms After an Exhausted Project « Kasama said
[…] 6 […]
Mike E said
It was rather controversial, when this open Letter 6 was written to our comrades two years ago, that we said:
This was an important passage in the 9 letters — because it characterized the new, central and defining feature of the RCP’s politics (after the 2003 Avakian self coup) — i.e. their view that Avakian’s synthesis was a cardinal question for communists. And that Avakian (as a person) and his contributions were now key dividing line between Marxism and revisionism (i.e. between revolutionary communism and counterrevolution).
This was a particularly tricky point for two reasons: First, it was their core belief, and was the key issue in the line struggle destroying the RCP. And second, in a strange and unprecedented way the RCP was expelling people for not supporting this core belief but trying to keep its very existence a secret.
The authors of the 9 Letters believed that political organizations have the right to have secrets (leadership, membership, internal history, details of meetings, internal documents etc.) But we did not think that it was principled for the RCP to force people out for not upholding the “cardinal question” — and yet want to avoid open discussion of this rather far-reaching political verdict.
So we carefully characterized the line involved, without quoting internal documents and without giving away internal processes, events etc.
To put it crudely, we are accused of lying. Many RCP supporters insisted that it could not possibly be true that the RCP would dare to say Avakian (himself) was a dividing line among communists (on the level of the dictatorship of the proletariat or the need for a vanguard party).
The RCP fumed (vaguely without providing details) that we were promoting distortions of their line, and leaking secrets in a supposedly unprincipled way.
So, in the wake of that tempest in a broken teacup, I just want to point out that this week, Avakian himself has ended the controversy, by openly articulating their beliefs (in the small print within yet-another of his little-noticed talks). Since I am probably one of the few people reading such things closely, I feel the need to mention the open confession of belief (in himself and his historic-but-unrecognized role).
It is a bit confusing because (typically) Avakian is quoting himself talking about his own importance, and doing so in third person:
In other words, Avakian sees himself as “a Mao” and (like Mao) sees his personal contributions to Marxism as decisive for the ability of humanity to make any progress in the current period. And he believes that communists who do not embrace (or “engage” deeply enough) Avakian’s synthesis are condemned to slide into revisionism — and objective betrayal of revolution.
He is, in short, articulating what the RCP calls “the cardinal question” — i.e. that Avakian must be seen as the dividing line facing communists (and really humanity itself) at this point in history.
There is obviously a discussion to be had about the grandiosity and delusional quality of this assertion. And there is a separate discussion to be had about what are (in fact) the dividing lines among communists today — and what value there is in the contributions of various people (including Avakian).
But for the moment — it is worth pointing out the very mechanical (and now characteristic) method displayed: you must believe this, or else you will end up there. This is the method used to declare me and the Kasama project “counterrevolutionary” — not because of antything we have done other than consciously disagree with Avakian’s verdict on Avakian. (The religious character of this, and the analogy to Christian messianism, is perhaps not necessary to draw out.)
And in any case, it is worth pointing out that our 9 Letters were very careful and very accurate in describing the RCP’s political and ideological line.
Those who called us liars — then or now, around the country and the world — have been either deceived or are themselves the deceivers.
Cultural Animal said
Spiritual communities have dealt alot with charismatic leaders. There is a process whereby a student/follower first absorbs the messages of the leader, becomes empowered and subsequently begins to notice the flaws of the leader. This is a necessary process of learning. all this grappling for power- it’s existing in a paranoiac universe. i don’t agree with what is mentioned in the previous letter- that faith is always as simple as a coping mechanism under suffering. I even think that grounded spiritual communities who have done some learning here can offer lessons to all those who are struggling with issues of power and leadership.
nando said
recently published in a new Farsi translation:
http://maktabemarx.net/?p=719
Davis Less said
Most of my issues in this area that had before, just by visiting this site, I would highly recommend it for anyone in a similar position.
Left Forum NYC: Firewolf at Kasama’s Table « Kasama said
[…] feel that way about Democracy. I may not have felt RCP was crooked – at least until the whole Avakian deification came about — but I also never thought their actions or all their talk would ever really bring […]
Kasama: Serious answer to reckless charges « Kasama said
[…] or discussed who sits on internal bodies, and so on. Our criticism of Avakian has been at the level of line — and specifically not involved in personal matters and […]